Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010096712026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3243/2026 ARVIND SINGH SON OF TAP NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF UDALBAKRA, ADAGODOWN, LAKHARA ROAD, P.S. FATASIL AMBARI, GUWAHATI-34, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT (S) DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO DISTRICT- KAMRUP M GUWAHATI ASSAM. 4:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) KAMRUP M GUWAHATI ASSAM 5:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CID Page No.# 2/3 GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM. 6:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GUWAHTI KAMRUP M ASSAM 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE FATASIL AMBARI POLICE STATION GUAHATI KAMRUP M ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R DHAR, I GOGOI,MS. N S RAJKHOWA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 22-06-2026 Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. N. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3 – 7. 2. The petitioner has stated that his father, Tap Narayan Singh and one Late Bindeswari Prasad, owned a parcel of land under Dag no. 25 and KP Patta no. 97[N], Dag no. 79 and KP Patta no. 78[N], Dag no. 72[O]/79[N], Dag no. 25 and KP Patta no. 78, Dag no. 71, Dag nos. [Old] 97, 73, 74, 59, 57, 66, 67, Dag nos. [New] 20, 921, 946, 229, 230, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 249, 253 and others being Patta no. [Old] 80/90 and 57[New] of Village – Odalbakra under Page No.# 3/3 Beltola Mouza, Guwahati. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that after settlement operation carried out in 1955, there had been encroachment of those plots of land. From the statements and averments made in this writ petition, it is noticed that the encroachment of the lands, which purportedly belonged to the family of the petitioner, is by private persons. It is alleged that such encroachment is by land mafias. 4. In view of the aforesaid projections, the directions sought by the petitioner in the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondent authorities to make the aforesaid parcel of land of the petitioner encroachment free is not found entertainable. If the encroachment of the said plots of land, which are projected to have belonged to the petitioner, by private individuals including land mafias, the petitioner has to seek recourse before appropriate forum, as permissible under the law but not by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is a public law remedy. JUDGE Comparing Assistant